Driving on deteriorated urban roads costs motorists as much as $1,044 annually, according to a new report that evaluates pavement conditions in the nation’s large (500,000+ population) and mid-sized urban areas (250,000-500,000 population) and calculates the additional costs passed on to motorists as a result of driving on rough roads. Driving on roads in disrepair increases consumer costs by accelerating vehicle deterioration and depreciation, and increasing needed maintenance, fuel consumption and tire wear.

Driving on deteriorated urban roads costs motorists as much as $1,044 annually, according to a new report that evaluates pavement conditions in the nation’s large (500,000+ population) and mid-sized urban areas (250,000-500,000 population) and calculates the additional costs passed on to motorists as a result of driving on rough roads. Driving on roads in disrepair increases consumer costs by accelerating vehicle deterioration and depreciation, and increasing needed maintenance, fuel consumption and tire wear.

These findings were released today by TRIP, a national transportation research group based in Washington, D.C. The report, “Bumpy Roads Ahead: America’s Roughest Rides and Strategies to Make our Roads Smoother,” examines urban pavement conditions, transportation funding, travel trends and economic development. Pavement condition and vehicle operating costs for urban areas with populations of 250,000 or greater can be found in the report and appendices. The charts below detail large and mid-sized urban areas with the highest vehicle operating costs (VOC) and highest share of pavements in poor conditions.

Rank

Large Urban Area (500,000+ population)

Percent Poor

Rank

Large Urban Area (500,000+ population)

VOC Per Driver

1

San Francisco–Oakland, CA

74%

1

San Francisco-Oakland, CA

$ 1,044

2

Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana, CA

73%

2

Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana, CA

$ 1,031

3

Concord, CA

62%

3

Concord, CA

$ 954

4

Detroit, MI

56%

4

Tulsa, OK

$ 928

5

San Jose, CA

53%

5

Oklahoma City, OK

$ 917

6

Cleveland, OH

52%

6

Detroit, MI

$ 866

7

New York–Newark, NY

51%

7

Cleveland, OH

$ 845

8

San Diego, CA

51%

8

San Jose, CA

$ 844

9

Grand Rapids, MI

51%

9

San Diego, CA

$ 843

10

Honolulu, HI

51%

10

San Antonio, TX

$ 838

11

Akron, OH

50%

11

El Paso, TX

$ 815

12

San Antonio, TX

49%

12

Riverside–San Bernardino, CA

$ 812

13

Milwaukee, WI

46%

13

Grand Rapids, MI

$ 803

14

Riverside–San Bernardino, CA

46%

14

Akron, OH

$ 797

15

El Paso, TX

46%

15

New York–Newark, NY

$ 791

16

Oklahoma City, OK

45%

16

Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX

$ 791

17

Tulsa, OK

45%

17

Birmingham, AL

$ 784

18

New Haven, CT

45%

18

Honolulu, HI

$ 777

19

Bridgeport-Stamford, CT

44%

19

Houston, TX

$ 772

20

Birmingham, AL

43%

20

Sacramento, CA

$ 767

21

Denver–Aurora, CO

43%

21

Milwaukee, WI

$ 753

22

Seattle, WA

42%

22

Denver–Aurora, CO

$ 737

23

Omaha, NE

42%

23

Omaha, NE

$ 729

24

Sacramento, CA

42%

24

Colorado Springs, CO

$ 723

25

New Orleans, LA

42%

25

New Orleans, LA

$ 713

Rank

Mid-sized Urban Area

(250,000-500,000 population)

Percent Poor

Rank

Mid-sized Urban Area

(250,000-500,000 population)

VOC Per Driver

1

Flint, MI

54%

1

Temecula–Murrieta, CA

$ 857

2

Antioch, CA

52%

2

Flint, MI

$ 839

3

Santa Rosa, CA

49%

3

Antioch, CA

$ 831

4

Trenton, NJ

48%

4

Jackson, MS

$ 818

5

Temecula–Murrieta, CA

47%

5

Santa Rosa, CA

$ 811

6

Scranton, PA

46%

6

Trenton, NJ

$ 764

7

Reno, NV

46%

7

Hemet, CA

$ 758

8

Spokane, WA

44%

8

Reno, NV

$ 748

9

Jackson, MS

44%

9

Lansing, MI

$ 733

10

Lansing, MI

39%

10

Scranton, PA

$ 717

11

Baton Rouge, LA

38%

11

McAllen, TX

$ 716

12

Shreveport, LA

36%

12

Baton Rouge, LA

$ 705

13

Madison, WI

36%

13

Spokane, WA

$ 685

14

Hemet, CA

36%

14

Madison, WI

$ 685

15

Stockton, CA

34%

15

Oxnard, CA

$ 669

16

McAllen, TX

33%

16

Victorville–Hesperia–Apple Valley, CA

$ 664

17

Victorville-Hesperia-Apple Valley, CA

32%

17

Shreveport, LA

$ 663

18

Davenport, IA

31%

18

Stockton, CA

$ 657

19

Syracuse, NY

30%

19

Modesto, CA

$ 636

20

Modesto, CA

30%

20

Davenport, IA

$ 591

21

Oxnard, CA

30%

21

Wichita, KS

$ 591

22

Provo–Orem, UT

30%

22

Provo–Orem, UT

$ 583

23

Lancaster, PA

27%

23

Ann Arbor, MI

$ 571

24

Fort Wayne, IN

27%

24

Reading, PA

$ 555

25

Ann Arbor, MI

26%

25

Corpus Christi, TX

$ 549

In 2013 more than one quarter (28 percent) of the nation’s major urban roads– Interstates, freeways and other arterial routes – had pavements that were in substandard condition and provided an unacceptably rough ride to motorists, costing the average urban driver $516 annually. The nationwide annual cost of driving on deteriorated roads totals $109.3 billion.

In 2013 more than one quarter (28 percent) of the nation’s major urban roads– Interstates, freeways and other arterial routes – had pavements that were in substandard condition and provided an unacceptably rough ride to motorists, costing the average urban driver $516 annually. The nationwide annual cost of driving on deteriorated roads totals $109.3 billion.

“The nation’s rough roads stress nerves and cost billions in unnecessary vehicle replacement, repair and fuel costs,” said Jill Ingrassia, AAA managing director of government relations and traffic safety advocacy. “Full investment in our nation’s transportation system will reduce the financial burden on drivers and provide them with a smoother, safer and more efficient ride.”

The federal government is a critical source of funding for road and highway repairs. But the lack of adequate funding beyond the expiration of the current federal surface transportation program, MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act), which expires on July 31, 2015, threatens the future condition of the nation’s roads and highways.

“The long-term preservation and maintenance of our national transportation system depends on federal investment,” said Bud Wright, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). “We can do better than the uncertainty of short-term extensions. America needs Congress to fully fund a multi-year surface transportation bill.”

With vehicle travel growth rates returning to pre-recession levels and large truck travel anticipated to grow significantly, mounting wear and tear on the nation’s urban roads and highways is expected to increase the cost of needed highway repairs. Vehicle travel, which remained largely unchanged from 2008 to 2013, increased by 1.7 percent from 2013 to 2014 and increased 3.9 percent during the first four months of 2015 compared to the same period in 2014. And, the amount of large commercial truck travel in the U.S. is expected to increase by 72 percent from 2015 to 2030.

“The deteriorating condition of our nation’s urban roads threatens the health of the nation’s economy, reducing the efficiency of a region’s businesses and employers,” said Janet Kavinoky, Executive Director, Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and vice president of the Americans for Transportation Mobility (ATM) Coalition. “Attracting jobs and expanding a region’s economy requires a well-maintained, efficient and safe transportation system. Funding needed transportation improvements must be a top priority at the federal, state and local levels and Congress must do its part by authorizing an adequately funded, long-term federal transportation bill.”

“With state and local governments struggling to fund needed road repairs and with federal surface transportation funding set to expire this month, road conditions are projected to get even worse,” said Will Wilkins, TRIP’s executive director. “Congress could reduce the extra costs borne by motorists driving on rough roads by authorizing a long-term, adequately funded federal transportation program that improves road conditions on the nation’s major roads and highways.”

Bumpy Roads Ahead:

America’s Roughest Rides and Strategies to Make our Roads Smoother

Executive Summary

Keeping the wheel steady on America’s roads and highways has become increasingly challenging as drivers encounter potholes and pavement deterioration. More than a quarter of the nation’s major urban roadways – highways and major streets that are the main routes for commuters and commerce – are in poor condition. These critical links in the nation’s transportation system carry 53 percent of the approximately 3 trillion miles driven annually in America.

With the rate of vehicle travel returning to pre-recession levels and local and state governments unable to adequately fund road repairs while the current federal surface transportation program is set to expire on July 31, 2015, road conditions could get even worse in the future.

In this report, TRIP examines the condition of the nation’s major urban roads, including pavement condition data for America’s most populous urban areas, recent trends in travel, the latest developments in repairing roads and building them to last longer, and the funding levels needed to adequately address America’s deteriorated roadways.

For the purposes of this report, an urban area includes the major city in a region and its neighboring or surrounding suburban areas. Pavement condition data are the latest available and are derived from the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) 2013 annual survey of state transportation officials on the condition of major state and locally maintained roads and highways, based on a uniform pavement rating index. The pavement rating index measures the level of smoothness of pavement surfaces, supplying information on the ride quality provided by road and highway surfaces. The major findings of the TRIP report are:

More than a quarter of the nation’s major urban roads are rated in substandard or poor condition, providing motorists and truckers with a rough ride and increasing the cost of operating a vehicle.

More than one-quarter (28 percent) of the nation’s major urban roads – Interstates, freeways and other arterial routes – have pavements that are in substandard condition and provide an unacceptably rough ride to motorists.

An additional 41 percent of the nation’s major urban roads and highways have pavements that are in mediocre or fair condition, and 31 percent are in good condition.

Including major rural roads, 18 percent of the nation’s major roads are in poor condition, 40 percent are in mediocre or fair condition, and 42 percent are in good condition.

The 25 urban regions with a population of 500,000 or greater with the highest share of major roads and highways with pavements that are in poor condition and provide a rough ride are:

* An urban area includes the major city in a region and its neighboring or surrounding suburban areas.

The 25 urban regions with a population between 250,000 and 500,000 with the greatest share of major roads and highways with pavements that are in poor condition and provide a rough ride are:

* An urban area includes the major city in a region and its neighboring or surrounding suburban areas.

A listing of road conditions for each urban area with a population of 500,000 or more can be found in Appendix A. Pavement condition data for urban areas with a population between 250,000 and 500,000 can be found in Appendix B.

The average motorist in the U.S. is losing $516 annually — $109.3 billion nationally — in additional vehicle operating costs as a result of driving on roads in need of repair. Driving on roads in disrepair increases consumer costs by accelerating vehicle deterioration and depreciation, increasing the frequency of needed maintenance and requiring additional fuel consumption.

The 25 urban regions with at least 500,000 people, where motorists pay the most annually in additional vehicle maintenance because of roads in poor condition are:

* An urban area includes the major city in a region and its neighboring or surrounding suburban areas.

The 25 urban regions with a population between 250,000 and 500,000 where motorists pay the most annually in additional vehicle maintenance because of roads in poor condition are:

* An urban area includes the major city in a region and its neighboring or surrounding suburban areas.

A listing of additional vehicle operating costs due to driving on roads in substandard condition for urban areas with populations over 500,000 can be found in Appendix C. Additional vehicle operating costs for urban areas with a population between 250,000 and 500,000 can be found in Appendix D.

With vehicle travel growth returning to pre-recession rates and large truck travel anticipated to grow significantly, resulting in increased traffic and wear and tear on the nation’s urban roads and highways, the additional travel will increase the amount of road, highway and bridge investment which will be needed to improve conditions and to meet the nation’s transportation needs.

Vehicle travel increased by 39 percent from 1990 to 2008. From 2008 to 2013, the amount of vehicle travel on the nation’s roadways remained largely unchanged, increasing by one half percent during the five year period.

Vehicle travel in the U.S. increased by 1.7 percent from 2013 to 2014. U.S. vehicle travel during the first four months of 2015 increased 3.9 percent from the same period in 2014.

Travel by large commercial trucks in the U.S. increased by 79 percent from 1990 to 2013. Large trucks place significant stress on roads and highways.

The level of heavy truck travel nationally is anticipated to increase by approximately 72 percent from 2015 to 2030, putting greater stress on the nation’s roadways.

The 2015 AASHTO Transportation Bottom Line Report found that the U.S. currently has a $740 billion backlog in improvements needed to restore the nation’s roads, highways and bridges to the level of condition and performance needed to meet the nation’s transportation demands.

The 2015 AASHTO Transportation Bottom Line Report found that the nation’s road, highway and bridge backlog included $392 billion in needed road and highway repairs to return them to a state of good repair; $112 billion needed in bridge rehabilitation and $237 billion in needed highway capacity expansions to relieve traffic congestion and support economic development.

The 2015 AASHTO Transportation Bottom Line Report also found that the annual needed investment in the nation’s roads, highways and bridges to improve their condition and to meet the nation’s transportation needs is $120 billion, assuming that vehicle travel increases at a rate of one percent per year. This level of investment is 36 percent higher than the current annual spending of $88 billion.

The 2015 AASHTO Transportation Bottom Line Report found that if the rate of vehicle travel increased by 1.4 percent per year that the needed annual investment in the nation’s roads, highways and bridges would increase to $144 billion and if vehicle travel grows by 1.6 percent annually the needed annual investment in the nation’s roads, highways and bridges would be $156 billion.

The federal government is a critical source of funding for road and highway repairs. But the lack of adequate funding beyond the expiration of the current federal surface transportation program, MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act), which expires on July 31, 2015, threatens the future condition of the nation’s roads and highways.

Projects to improve the condition of the nation’s roads and bridges could boost the nation’s economic growth by providing significant short- and long-term economic benefits.

Highway rehabilitation and preservation projects provide significant economic benefits by improving travel speeds, capacity and safety, and by reducing operating costs for people and businesses. Roadway repairs also extend the service life of a road, highway or bridge, which saves money by postponing the need for more expensive future repairs.

The Federal Highway Administration estimates that each dollar spent on road, highway and bridge improvements results in an average benefit of $5.20 in the form of reduced vehicle maintenance costs, reduced delays, reduced fuel consumption, improved safety, reduced road and bridge maintenance costs and reduced emissions as a result of improved traffic flow.

Transportation agencies can reduce pavement life cycle costs by using higher-quality paving materials that keep roads structurally sound and smooth for longer periods, and by employing a pavement preservation approach that optimizes the timing of repairs to pavement surfaces.

There are five life-cycle stages of a roadway pavement: design, construction, initial deterioration, visible deterioration and pavement disintegration and failure.

A 2010 Federal Highway Administration report found that an over-reliance on short-term pavement repairs will fail to provide the long-term structural integrity needed in a roadway surface to guarantee the future performance of a paved road or highway.

The 2010 Federal Highway Administration report warned that transportation agencies that focus only on current pavement surface conditions will eventually face a highway network with an overwhelming backlog of pavement rehabilitation and replacement needs.

A properly implemented pavement preservation approach to keeping pavements in good condition has been found to reduce overall pavement life cycle costs by approximately one-third over a 25-year period.

Initial pavement preservation can only be done on road surfaces that are structurally sound. Roads that have significant deterioration must be maintained with surface repairs until sufficient funds are available to reconstruct the road, at which time a pavement preservation strategy can be adopted.

The use of thicker pavements and more durable designs and materials for a particular roadway are being used to increase the life span of road and highway surfaces and delay the need for significant repairs. These new pavements include high performance concrete pavements and asphalt pavements which have a perpetual pavement design.

Adequate funding allows transportation agencies to reconstruct roadways that are structurally worn out and adopt the following recommendations for insuring a smooth ride.

Implement and adequately fund a pavement preservation program that performs initial maintenance on road surfaces while they are still in good condition, postponing the need for significant rehabilitation.

Use pavement materials and designs that will provide a longer-lasting surface when critical routes are constructed or reconstructed.

Resurface roads in a timely fashion using pavement materials that are designed to be the most durable, given local climate and the level and mix of traffic on the road.

Invest adequately to ensure that 75 percent of local road surfaces are in good condition.

All data used in the report are the latest available. Sources of information for this report include the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), the AAA, the Texas Transportation Institute, the Transportation Research Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Tired of seeing this comment when anything relative to the highway bill comes up for discussion? You should be. Since 2009, Congress has passed 34 short-term bills to fund transportation programs.

On July 18, 2015 the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said, during the Thursday hearing, that his preference is for lawmakers to pass a long-term extension to avoid repeats of the upcoming “highway cliff.” He thinks a six-year transportation funding bill sought by infrastructure advocates is “a great goal” and said he is “committed to working to get us as close to that goal as possible.”

The current transportation funding legislation includes about $50 billion in annual spending on road and transit projects. With the current gas tax at (which has not been increased since 1993) 18.4-cent-per-gallon, Federal Gas Tax revenue is only about $34 billion per year. Other pockets of the federal budget have been tapped to fill the gap in recent years. Transportation advocates have pointed out that the resulting temporary patches prevent states from completing long-term construction projects. These short-term extensions negatively impact all transportation related improvements, repairs and maintenance on all levels — regional state, municipal and local.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated it will take somewhere around a $100 billion to close the gap long enough to pay for a six-year transportation funding bill.

Hatch added, “Right now, when it comes to highways, we find ourselves caught in a familiar dilemma, between raising taxes or cutting back on the highway program.”

Why the delays, why the problems with passing a six-year bill? Hatch stated “First of all, neither party should point fingers and try to lay blame when it comes to the now-common practice of passing short-term highway extensions. ” He added, “Between the 110th and 113th Congresses, when the Democrats controlled the Senate, we enacted 11 short-term highway extensions.”

Highway and transportation advocates, industry associations and the industry all believe that without a long-term bill, be that six years or more, our national highway system is at risk. According to CBO, a six-year highway bill that maintains the current spending baseline will cost at least $92 billion.

The needed improvements, repairs, updates, maintenance can’t happen without funding. Funding can’t happen without some form of revenue collection — fuel tax, vehicle mileage tax, etc. – and right now fuel tax is the most realistic way to cover these costs. The extension that sits waiting for the Senate rewrite will take us to the end of the year. Will the House accept the Senate rewrite? Your guess is a good as anyone’s. Meanwhile we continue to drive on rapidly deteriorating roads, causing endless dollars of damage to our vehicles and reducing the safety factor in driving.

You really have to sit back and ask yourself, if congress couldn’t come up with a long-term bill over the course of 6 years and 34 failed attempts can they get the job done in 5 months with an election year coming? Or, will we be looking at extension 35?

Now Comes the Senate

The following comments by:

Michael O’Brien

Public Affairs Manager, Association of Equipment Manufacturers

Welcome back to your favorite intermittent email series, “Where are we on a highway bill?” Below is a brief recap of today’s action, and some perspectives on where we go next.

We have a bill. We don’t have a bill.

Senators McConnell, Inhofe and Boxer announced a deal on a bipartisan, six-year highway bill late Tuesday morning after a weekend full of negotiating over ways to pay for it. But the legislation hit a procedural snag after Democrats blocked proceeding to the agreement because the text of the bill hadn’t been released until a few minutes before the scheduled cloture vote.

The vote was 41-56, after which Sen. McConnell (who voted no for procedural reasons) immediately entered a motion to reconsider, setting up another attempt at a Motion to Proceed (MTP) as soon as tomorrow. McConnell further suggested the Senate may work into the weekend to complete its work on highways.

But we do have pay-fors.

The agreement includes about $45 billion in funding offsets, good enough to finance about three years (or half) of the six-year bill. Some of the biggest offsets include:

[if !supportLists]· [endif]$16.3 billion from cutting the dividend rate paid by the Federal Reserve to large banks

[if !supportLists]· [endif]$9.0 billion from selling off a portion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)

[if !supportLists]· [endif]$4.0 billion from indexing customs user fees to inflation (Funny how indexing certain user fees is now so popular in Congress…)

You can find a full summary of the offsets, courtesy of our friend from the Senate Finance Committee, here.

Senator Reid said that Democrats will meet on Wednesday morning to discuss the specifics of the highway bill. Senator Boxer urged fellow Democrats to vote yes on cloture tomorrow: “I hope that tomorrow we’ll be able to join with our friends and vote to proceed.”

And though House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Tuesday that the Senate should take up the House bill, Senator McConnell – who hardly ever offers offhanded comments – said he expected the House would take up a long-term bill if it is passed out of the Senate: “If we can get this bill over to the House, it is my belief they will take it up.”

What’s business doing?

AEM joined 67 other groups in signing a letter in support of today’s agreement. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among other groups, also urged senators to support cloture.

AEM and its coalition partners are going to continue to enlist our respective memberships to call and email Congress to urge work toward advancing a multi-year transportation bill. In the last 24 hours alone, AEM’s grassroots supporters have sent 1,400 emails to Congress in support of a long-term highway bill.

We’ll continue to impress the importance of providing our nation’s highway programs with critical certainty in the coming hours and days.

The House voted Wednesday to approve an $8 billion bill to extend federal transportation funding until December.

The funding extension was approved in a 312-119 vote.

The legislation now goes to the Senate, which is considering a funding bill that could also include an extension of the Export-Import Bank.

That would introduce a new complication to the fight over highway funding; conservatives in the House want to prevent Ex-Im from moving forward.

Republican leaders said the stopgap measure will buy time to negotiate a long-term highway bill.

“We don’t like patches more than anybody else does,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said. “But this patch is necessary to make sure that [construction] projects don’t stop.”

Democrats complained bitterly about the temporary extension, which is the 34th highway funding patch that has been approved by Congress since 2005.

“If kicking the can down the road was an Olympic sport, what we would win here in the United States Congress, we would win gold, we would win bronze, we’d win silver, and we’d win aluminum,” said Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.).

Lawmakers face a July 31 deadline to extend highway funding.

Congress has been grappling with a transportation funding shortfall estimated at about $16 billion per year. Since 2005, lawmakers have not passed a transportation bill that lasts longer than two years.

In the Senate, it is expected that lawmakers will add an Ex-Im extension to the highway funding measure, and then send that package back to the House.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and other opponents of the bank have warned GOP leaders against that strategy.

“I’m willing to use any and all procedural tools to stop this corporate welfare and this corruption from being propagated,” Cruz, who is running for his party’s presidential nomination, said at a press conference in Washington on Wednesday.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has promised to allow opponents of Ex-Im a chance to strip that language from a funding bill if the Senate approves the package. But it is not clear whether opponents would have the votes to win.

Lawmakers are not expected to leave for their August recess without taking action on highway spending.

The main source of transportation funding has been the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax, but the tax has not been increased since 1993 and more fuel-efficient cars have sapped its buying power.

The federal government typically spends about $50 billion per year on transportation projects, but the gas tax only brings in approximately $34 billion annually.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated it will take about $100 billion, in addition to the gas tax revenue, to pay for a six-year transportation funding bill.

The GOP measure approved on Wednesday relies on $3 billion worth of savings from Transportation Security Administration fees and $5 billion in tax compliance measures. It would fund road projects through Dec. 18.

Democrats introduced the $478 billion highway bill proposed by President Obama, which also does not contain a gas tax hike, ahead of Wednesday’s vote.

That measure calls for spending $478 billion over the next six years on the nation’s roads and bridges. It would fund some of the spending by revamping the U.S.’s international tax structure, instituting a one-time tax of 14 percent on offshore profits held by American multinational companies.

Republicans and business groups insist that the 14 percent rate is too high, but Ryan, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) have said they’re interested in an international tax reform deal that would also tap the offshore profits to pay for a long-term highway bill.

Top GOP senators have made it clear that they won’t just accept the House’s bill, and are still interested in a multi-year bill that would at least get the Highway Trust Fund past the 2016 election.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) told reporters that Republicans had carved out enough money to pay for about five years’ worth of highway funding.

“We’re both going at it as best we can, and then ultimately we’ve got to resolve it, between the House and Senate,” Hatch said. “And I think we will.”

In June, we published graphs showing past balances and projected balances for the two Highway Trust Fund accounts, the Highways Account and the Mass Transit Account. Those graphs showed the Highways Account balance quickly approaching zero with the Mass Transit Account balance not far behind.

A month later, we’ve updated the data for both accounts to reflect June’s activity. I’m sorry to report that the situation has not really changed, and both accounts are dwindling fast. In fact, we’re nearing the threshold for the Highways Account where we have to institute cash management procedures.
The timing couldn’t be worse because summer is the season for road work –whether it’s patching potholes; renewing pavement, safety devices, and signage; or working on new projects. And, as more and more of us are finding out each day, America’s roads are not in good shape.

Earlier today, we released fact sheets for every state documenting the percentage of bridges that need major attention, the percent of roads in bad or mediocre condition, and the annual cost to drivers of those maintenance challenges.

And the picture for transit isn’t great either. Many of our legacy systems are experiencing the same maintenance challenges our roads face. And 45 percent of Americans don’t even have access to transit.

With current surface transportation law set to expire by the end of this very month, the time for Congress to act is clearly now.

We’ve sent them a proposal, the GROW AMERICA Act, that would address our road and transit challenges, but GROW can’t fix anything unless Congress passes it and sends it to the President’s desk for his signature.

Through the entire history of this country, we have been nothing if not a Nation of problem-solvers.

It’s time for Congress to live up to that legacy. It’s time for a transportation bill that lasts more than a few months and increases investment in our roads, bridges, and transit systems. It’s time to GROW.